(Measly?) Handgun. There are small handguns, but measly? Almost every description of a handgun that was pointed at someone was described as, huge, large, big, scary, but measly? Even a small firearm pointed in your direction looks large.

I had a .22 caliber pistol pointed at my head, the trigger pulled. It clicked, stoned kid whom I was supposed to friends with "forgot" to
Load it. That bastard might as well had been a
.50 DE! Almost had to change my pants, never went back to that place.

__________________
Oh dern....

Revelation 19:11

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

The gun helped to form our nation.. We didnt have Kung Fu masters, Samurai, Knights, or archers.. We had Revolutionary forefathers, solders, and cowboys.... All our historic figures carried guns...

Since there was a hostile stone age population occupying America when the Europeans began to colonize here, it was necessary for the Europeans all to be armed. The popular arms at the time were swords and muskets, at first, in the 1500s.

Due to the continued hostility between the colonists and the natives, there was social and economic pressure to develop and obtain better firearms. Eventually only cavalry soldiers continued with swords, whereas the Colt .45 and the Henry's repeating rifle became the ideal defense (and offense) weapons.

Even after the American Revolution, the Founders foresaw that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In the 1700s and 1800s this right was necessary for personal as well as national security. There were still lots of Indians still all around, and the French were not far, and the British could return anytime.

At some point crime and lawlessness became a focus of greater relevance to lawmen, particularly drunken brawls, as the nation was plunging towards alcohol addiction, and they imposed gun restrictions in cities and towns. This early infringement on the right to bear arms was somehow tolerated, and within another 100 years by the 1900s it became the norm. Eventually gun restrictions became ubiquitous everywhere in all states.

Only recently have some states like Arizona, Florida, and Texas reversed the trend and their legislators deciding to go back to an earlier time when the public was personally armed. We are in the midst of this re-experiment now.

I hope against hope that California will follow in Arizona's footsteps, but it is unlikely because California is too socialist, and anti-gun thinking is too entrenched here. I suspect the same mentality also exists in many of the populous East Coast states as well.

There are two popular cultures in America today, the gun culture, and the anti-gun culture. These two groups vie with each other for control of the state and federal legislatures and the courts.

The hostile Indians have long since been exterminated and are now replaced by hostile criminals, in many cases racial, in most cases impoverished, often times drug addicted and drug soliciting or distributing. This is not new today either, because in the 1920s the prohibition era produced similar demand and black marketing for alcohol that the hard drugs are triggering now.

The Arizonans live on the border of Mexico, which is were the drug menace comes from. Their legislators have wisely decided to restore the 2nd Amendment in its full force to combat this drug menace which results in a crime menace in their state.

Texas and Florida have decided to act similarly as Arizona, but at the same time trying to regulate the 2nd Amendment and require registrations and charge fees for this right. Money grubbing legislative exploiters every minute of every day.

It was more self apparent that the right to keep and bear arms was a vital necessity when there were more hostile natives on the frontiers, as well as the British and the French in a hostile world-wide contest to conquer as many lands as possible. Now we just have barely enough criminals everwhere to make life dangerous.

It is fascinating to contrast the history of gun ownership in North American with that of South America. In the South, these same gun rights that we currently have in the North never evolved. Mostly because the North American natives were much more ruthless, whereas in the South they were easily overcome and subdued early on.

So we should thank the Indians, the French, and the British for our right to keep and bear arms. They were the best of enemies, and when you are surrounded by enemies, you need to keep and bear arms. Or you will die.

Smaller countries can enforce tighter controls on their citizens than larger countries. When America was invaded the natives did not like the fact that they had to make room for outsiders. So the natives rebelled, but they had no guns.

Then there was other governmental forces wanting to take control and plunder the new land. Then the Americans rebelled, but they had guns, which made the rebellion possible. Now, America has enemies all around the world that's biting at the bit to overthrow her.

However, guns make that impossible, so now the other governmental forces got to take the guns from the Americans in order to overthrow her. However, that may be difficult.

In the US, one could argue that Liberal govt causes crime.
Chicago, DC, Newark, etc, all bastions of progressive welfare programs in place for decades, with strong gun laws. Anyone one want to walk through any of those places at night...unarmed? Pick a large liberal metro area and you can find a crime ridden hell hole in the mix.

Mexico has very strict gun control laws. Hows that working out in the border areas?
Switzerland has a lot of gun ownership, per capita, and yet they aren't the wild west.
I'd be interested in knowing the gun laws in Mogadishu. They are probably fairly strict, on paper.
Each place has their own set of challenges, claiming that one solution (any solution) will work for everyone is unrealistic.
FWIW, by reputation, prison in the ROK is something to be avoided. They don't spring for a lot of luxury items, like heat and windows. I remember reading that the chaplains used to have to make sure that the US personnel who managed to run afoul of Korean law were taken care of. The Korean correctional system really didn't worry too much about the occupants. I expect that in other Asian counties, the prison systems are to be avoided as well.

__________________Cheers,
GregMSgt, USAF, RetiredNRA Life MemberThe hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see. - Ayn Rand

Remember that Flordia was a state the was one of the first to pass a "concealed carry law" and its rate of crime plummeted.
Societies are different. At times I think that part of the problem in the USA is the fact we are so different. In recent years the "melting pot " has given way to "minority rights" and a nation that once had an unofficial language, English, is supposedly now bilingual. This may sound trivial but looking around the globe. those nations that are able to discern one citizen from another have problems, my tribe is bigger/smaller than yours. We speak Basque and no___. French is spoken here! We may both be followers of Islam, but you are a Shiite and I am Sunni.
Our English cousins had few problems, but as citizens of the Commonwealth invaded the motherland ___. Their crime problem is growing exponentially, and their police are getting armed.!
AS far as there being no guns in Korea and it being less like the "wild wild west' The last few years haven't been too bad. But over the course of my lifetime I've seen a tremendous number of guns featured in news clips on Korea. The government troops were holding all of them and "students" were on the receiving end fighting back with sticks and firebombs while inhaling tear gas and dodging water cannons. We have #44 and Korea had General Parks. Unfortunately, we too might see tanks in our Capitol.
How well did the Koreans do against the Japanese?

I remain convinced that crime rates are determined by issues other than gun laws. Compare Utah's crime rate to Arizona. Both states have similar gun laws but Utah has a much lower crime rate.
How transitory is your population? In Arizona few people have immediate family members in the State and as a result it is much easer to fall into alcohol and drug abuse. How well or poorly educated is your public? How poor are they?
I have often suspected that much of Arizona's crime problem is directly related to drug smuggling and the cartels that do it. f ou extracted business related crimes our stats would look much better.

I live in Belgium,and I started shooting guns 40 years ago. At the time, I just had to pay a visit to my local police chief and he would write me a gun permit immediately, because he knew me well. Now, 40 years and a huge shift to the political left later, I belong to an endangered species.

If I want to buy a gun, I have to prove that I'm a long-term member of a shooting club; I have to do a theoretical and practical exam, my MD has to declare that I'm physically and psychologically fit to handle a firearm, my wife has to sign a consent that she agrees with me buying a weapon, I need to prove that I have not had any conviction in the past, I have to sign a form where I declare that I will keep my guns in a safe, and separate from the ammo; I then have to apply for a licence with the government, and pay some $140 to open a 'case'. Then I have to wait for at least 3 months and if I'm lucky, I can go and buy the gun.

I cannot buy any full auto's nor guns with a barrel equal to or shorter than 3 inches, I have to transport the gun with a trigger-lock and separate from the ammo. Under no circumstance can I carry the gun on my person. Every time I go the range, I have to register my visit and note the guns I used that day. If I even commit the slightest infraction or violation of any law, I lose all my licenses and my guns.

The situation is getting more and more ridiculous, because every time some nitwit shoots someone, even with an unlicensed gun, the law comes down hard on us, law-obiding citizens and they invent new restrictions. Now there's talk about having to leave the guns at the range, and not taking them home any more.

All this because the general public in this sissie-country is against guns and press and politicians join them. Shooting used to be a lot of fun when I started out 40 years ago. Now we have to pray every day that there will not be another moron that starts shooting anywhere in the country, or it's finished for us.

I wish there was a way free countries like the US could help us, be it just by lobbying with our government, to have a guarantee for democracy or whatever. But something needs to be done, cause we are sitting ducks as it is now.

You have my condolences, Model52. Much of what you describe is in place right now in my state, New York (and I am no where near New York City).

Our Second Amendment highlights a fundamental truth: everyone has a right to defend themselves, the lives of their family, their property and their wealth from any attacker. This truth is universal: all people everywhere have this natural right. Whether or not it is codified in your laws is another matter.

But it's up to the people of Belgium to demand their natural rights be recognized by law and respected by those who govern.

You have my condolences, Model52. Much of what you describe is in place right now in my state, New York (and I am no where near New York City).

Our Second Amendment highlights a fundamental truth: everyone has a right to defend themselves, the lives of their family, their property and their wealth from any attacker. This truth is universal: all people everywhere have this natural right. Whether or not it is codified in your laws is another matter.

But it's up to the people of Belgium to demand their natural rights be recognized by law and respected by those who govern.

"Natural rights" is a category of philosophy that is hard to define.

In modern times, we often think of "human rights."

The UN and the USA currently attempt to hold all nations to a high standard of human rights, on the premise that any nation that upholds their own peoples' human rights is less likely to invade and violate another nation's peoples' human rights as well.

This is a modern theory. It sounds good. It is popular. It may or may not be true.

As to what "rights" any of us has, individually, that seems to all depend on where you live, and how lucky you are.

For instance, think of someone who has been falsely accused, falsely identified, and falsely imprisoned or falsely executed. Obviously, he had no natural rights at all. Society took them all away.

Ultimately it takes a lot of money to defend your rights, when necessary. The poor therefore have few natural rights.

I think the only right anyone really has is the right to fight or the right to give up. And either way, you could lose, no matter what happens.

We each should be able to defend ourselves at all times. Sometimes however it does little good. Sometimes you can be outgunned, by false accusors, by the legal system, by the police/sheriffs, even by the military for instance if they draft you and send you half way across the world to be shot at by indigenous peoples who do not want you there.